On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Ray Saintonge<sainto...@telus.net> wrote: > How does becoming old, and being held in only 12 libraries suddenly > cause a book to revert to primary source status?
I have seen the dual argument as well: that sources which would certainly be counted as primary if they were 100 years old must be counted as secondary sources if they are recent. For example, if we wrote an article about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln entirely from newspaper articles published in 1865, nobody would say we had written this from secondary sources. But some do argue that an article written entirely from newspaper articles published in 2009 is written from secondary sources. > It seems that a lot of people are prone to gaming source levels to suit their > own objectives. Yes, this happens quite often. It's partially a consequence of certain policies, such as WP:N, directly referring to "secondary sources", even when this is not the right metric. For example, one reason that people want to count contemporary newspaper articles as secondary sources is to establish notability immediately for contemporary events, without waiting a year for better sources to develop. - Carl _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
